Reflections on the Questionnaire Survey Results Regarding Prosecutors from the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office Appearing in Court to Execute Public Prosecutions

It has been half a year since the implementation of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. In response to feedback from many lawyers that prosecutors from the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office (THPO) have had less-than-ideal cooperation regarding the implementation of "cross-examination," the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Bar Association, and the Taipei Bar Association jointly released the results of a questionnaire survey on the THPO prosecutors' court appearances for public prosecutions, following a month-long survey conducted among lawyers nationwide.

This survey was conducted among lawyers across the country, collecting a total of 126 valid questionnaires. The responding lawyers possessed extensive practical experience, with an average practice duration of 11.32 years. The results reveal, first of all, that THPO prosecutors failed to consistently attend court in person throughout the proceedings, with 2% of prosecutors even failing to appear at all during trial proceedings. Secondly, THPO prosecutors remain stuck in the old mode of court hearings; 70% of prosecutors merely stated "as set forth in the indictment (appeal)" when stating the gist of the prosecution (appeal). Furthermore, THPO prosecutors have not fulfilled their duty to present evidence to the best of their ability. The questionnaire shows that over 70% of prosecutors failed to submit evidence lists, applications for evidence investigation, or closing argument briefs. In addition, the prosecution's representatives in court are inconsistent, casting doubt on whether the prosecution can accurately grasp the facts of the case and effectively prosecute crimes. Finally, prosecutors were inadequately prepared during court hearings, with some even failing to bring case files altogether. These results consistently demonstrate that, half a year after the implementation of the new criminal procedure system, the THPO has yet to deliver a satisfactory performance.

The results of this questionnaire indicate that THPO prosecutors are indeed unprepared for the new cross-examination system. Some may argue that this is the inevitable result of the new system being implemented too hastily, leaving most prosecution personnel with insufficient time to prepare. Regardless, the system has been in effect for half a year, and such an excuse is no longer acceptable. After all, if law enforcement officers refuse to reflect upon themselves due to lingering resistance against the new system and fail to adjust their mindset, who should be held accountable for the rights lost by citizens resulting from their improper operation? How can the THPO or the Chief Prosecutors of various High Prosecutors Office branches fail to review this phenomenon?

The poor attitude of THPO prosecutors toward participating in the cross-examination system may also be related to the organizational structure of the prosecutor's office. Corresponding to the three-tier, three-instance court system, prosecutors are likewise divided into district prosecutors offices, high prosecutors offices, and the Supreme Prosecutors Office, with cases transferred to higher-level prosecutors offices upon appeal by a party. However, higher-level prosecutors are often unfamiliar with the case facts; instances even occur where, after a district prosecutor files an appeal, the high prosecutor delays supplementing the reasons for appeal, thereby dragging out the proceedings. With a disjointed institutional transition and a subjective tendency toward inertia, demanding that high prosecutors perform conscientiously in court inevitably becomes even more difficult. Therefore, these questionnaire results seem to imply that the poor performance of THPO prosecutors must also be examined at the organizational level.

There is no intention here to smear THPO prosecutors, and we firmly believe that many conscientious and responsible prosecutors still exist within the THPO. Nevertheless, the disappointing results of the questionnaire remain an indisputable fact. We look forward to seeing THPO prosecutors receive a much better evaluation in the next, larger-scale questionnaire survey.

※ Published in: Liberty Times